Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Would This Be An Acceptable Alternative to Abortion?

Arguments over social policies often take place over superficial, concrete positions that don't really get at the positions of both sides. To this end: there's a feeling people often get that anti-abortion, anti-birth control "arguments" aren't really about protecting babies per se, but rather controlling women's reproductive freedom. (For example, male birth control is getting closer to reality and I haven't heard a single peep out of the usual concerned parties about that...)

So here's a thought experiment for you to find out what people are really after here. Let's make two changes to the world of our thought experiment. First, assume that there are medical discoveries made so that now, we can extract a fetus from a woman at any stage of development without harming the mother or the fetus - and have artificial wombs that can keep the fetus healthy and growing until "delivery" at 9 months. Second, assume that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett donate their every last cent to a fund to get adoptive parents to house, feed, clothe, raise and educate these kids, so they're taken care of after their artificial births. They'll have lives just like any other adopted baby.

If this became possible, would this be morally preferable to making women who don't want their baby carry the fetus to term? If not, why not?


Anonymous said...

I am 100% Pro Life. To answer your question:


It was never about what a woman does with her body but always about the life of the innocent baby.

BTW: What is the Latin word for baby? (Answer: Fetus)

Chiefy said...

It would certainly be better as an option, but then you're comparing an option to a forced choice. It would not be better if it were required by law.

The day will probably come when this is an option that some will choose, as a way of giving up the baby for adoption prenatally. It raises other questions. Will it be available only to those with higher incomes? Will it lead to a higher birth rate, with unforeseen consequences? Will there be enough adoptive parents?

As usual, we will probably do it first, and ask the tough moral questions later.

Artor said...

I'm not sure about "morally acceptable." But practically acceptable? No. While it would be nice to ensure that all children have a loving home to grow up in, the world does not need extraordinary measures to increase the population. If there were some way we could decrease the population, without widespread famine, war & pestilence, I would be all for that. Fortunately, there is one way, and that is birth control, abortion included.

Michael Caton said...

Sorry for my late responses. Theonomist: I'm glad to see a pro-life person who is morally consistent, but I think a lot of the people with your position would be troubled to say "yes" as you have, because they very often have different motivations with you. Artor, I agree that by far the best option is not to have the baby in the first place, because (as Chiefy said) there are lots of hard questions to be asked in such a case, including the availability of such technology and the effect on the person the baby grows up to be.